gno.law

District Court, S.D. California · 3:26-cv-00723 · 2026-02-06 · Unknown

Darwin Alexander Maldonado-Aldana v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; et al.

Proceeding
original
Outcome
other — He seeks a 3 writ of habeas
Area
civil
Panel
Linda Lopez (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T20:41Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by an immigration detainee alleging wrongful detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and the Fifth Amendment. The court denied summary dismissal, ordered the respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted, and issued a limited stay enjoining the removal of the petitioner from the district to preserve jurisdiction.

What the court decidedThe model
Summary dismissal of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.
“Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.”
agree with court
The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases, which requires that allegations be vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. The petition alleges specific facts regarding the petitioner's status, detention, and legal claims, which are sufficient to survive a facial challenge at this stage.
Respondents are ordered to show cause why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return.
“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before February 17, 2026.”
agree with court
This is a standard procedural step in a § 2241 habeas proceeding where the petition is not summarily dismissed. The court is requiring the custodian to respond to the allegations.
A limited stay is ordered enjoining Respondents from removing the Petitioner from the United States or the district.
“Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision.”
agree with court
The court invoked the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) to preserve its jurisdiction over the pending habeas matter. This is a recognized practice in immigration detention cases to prevent mootness if the petitioner is removed from the district before the court can rule on the merits.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases and applies it to the facts recited. It also correctly utilizes the All Writs Act to preserve jurisdiction, a common and necessary step in immigration detention litigation to prevent mootness. The reasoning is concise but legally sound for a preliminary procedural order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARWIN ALEXANDER Case No.: 26cv0723-LL-MMP MALDONADO-ALDANA, 12 ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE Petitioner, 13 TO PETITION AND SETTING v. BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior 15 Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; 16 et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 Petitioner Darwin Alexander Maldonado-Aldana is a detainee in the custody of the 20 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On 21 February 5, 2026, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 22 ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States 23 without inspection as an unaccompanied minor in November 2018. Pet. ¶ 1. He was 24 apprehended by immigration authorities shortly thereafter and in March 2019, was released 25 from the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to his uncle. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. 26 Petitioner was at liberty for the next six years until he was arrested by immigration 27 authorities on November 7, 2025 in Virginia, and then subsequently transferred to Otay 28 Mesa Detention Center where he remains detained. Id. ¶¶ 29–30. Petitioner alleges that he 1 is wrongfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) in violation of the Immigration and 2 Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id. ¶¶ 41–48. He seeks a 3 writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to, inter alia, release him from custody or 4 alternatively, provide him with a bond hearing. Id. at 11. 5 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted 6 at this time. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary 7 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague [or] 8 conclusory’ or ‘palpably incredible’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” (citations omitted)). 9 Additionally, the Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All 10 Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a 11 reasoned decision, in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is 12 removed from this district.1 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 13 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their 14 authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration 15 matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting cases)). 16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 17 1. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should 18 not be granted by filing a written Return on or before February 17, 2026. The Return shall 19 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and 20 shall address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondents shall 21 serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 22 2. Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before 23 February 23, 2026. 24 25 26 27 1 Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages 28 l 3. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 2 without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 3 || notified otherwise. 4 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 5 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 6 || Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, 7 ||to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. 8 5. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 9 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: February 6, 2026 NO 12 QF 13 Honorable Linda Lopez 4 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28